29.08.2016

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/O.P. challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 154/2009 allowing the complaint on contest in part against the Appellant/O.P. with the directions as under :-

          “That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the o.p. in part.  O.p is hereby directed to revert the entire amount they had diverted from the salary account of the complainant and at the same time complainant is also directed to pay the entire sum due to the credit of o.p. bank towards credit card account uptill the date i.e. 26.09.08 without any further interest thereafter and to make it clear complainant shall make payment of credit card dues payable to o.p. with usual interest uptill the date of blocked only.  O.p. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only.  Parties to this case shall comply with the above order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.e. an interest @9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due the credit of both parties till full realization”.

          The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Respondent/Complainant who is the holder of a Salary Savings Accounts in the Appellant/O.P. Bank was issued a credit card bearing No. 4477474358588005 against the Salary Savings Accounts by the Appellant/O.P. Bank under certain terms and conditions governing the credit card  facilities.  The Respondent/Complainant used to utilize extensively the credit card for purchasing different articles.

          On 26.09.2008, at about 08.00 a.m., the bag of the Respondent/Complainant containing the credit card and debit card was, allegedly, stolen at Carmelite Convent – IV, Outram Steet, Kolkata.  The incident was immediately diarized by her with the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station and thereafter, on the same day, the Respondent/Complainant got her stolen credit card blocked through telephone banking.

          The Respondent/Complainant’s request over telephone, for several times from the date of loss of her credit card, for issuing a new credit card in place of the old and lost one was never heeded to by the Appellant/O.P. inspite of assurance being given by the Respondent/Complainant for payment of the outstanding dues in respect of his old card.  The collection agent, however, kept calling the Respondent/Complainant emphasizing on immediate payment of the outstanding dues against her lost card.  They further kept on sending the Respondent/Complainant the monthly statement showing therein the monthly charges increasing with the passage of time in the forms of overdue amount, late payment fee etc.  This way the   final charges became as high as Rs.30,000/-.

          At the end of December, 2008, the Respondent/Complainant, through phone banking, came to know that her salary has been credited but found that her Salary Savings Accounts has been blocked by the card department showing therein a minus figure of Rs.30,000/-, equal to the total amount shown as outstanding in respect of her credit card.

          The Respondent/Complainant could not draw the amount of cash needed for her monthly expenses by using the ATM in January, 2009 also as the said credit card continued to remain blocked at that time too by the Appellant/O.P. Bank.  The Appellant/O.P. Bank, rather, deducted a further amount of Rs.1,900/- only from the Salary Savings Account of the Respondent/Complainant.

          The Respondent/Complainant, being deeply pained and anguished due to the alleged arbitrary action on the part of the Appellant/O.P. Bank, filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.

          The appeal was heard ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant as there was none to represent him.

          Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. Bank who submitted that the Respondent/Complainant used to utilize her credit card for purchase of different articles extensively.  The outstanding balance in her account accumulated to a big amount of Rs.35,291/- and she did not take any action for payment of the said outstanding dues.  She was requested time and again to take action for payment of the outstanding dues which she assured on every occasion but did not turn up or contact the Appellant/O.P. Bank for making the promised payment.  This way the Respondent/Complainant violated the terms and conditions for issuing of credit card.

          The reluctance of the Respondent/Complainant towards payment of the outstanding dues compelled the Appellant/O.P. Bank to debit outstanding dues from her Salary Savings Accounts.

          The demand of the Respondent/Complainant for using one new credit card could not be accommodated as there was outstanding dues against his old and lost credit card which remained unpaid for long in spite of constant persuasions. 

          In fact, Ld. Advocate submitted that the Appellant/O.P. Bank had no intention to block the Salary Savings Accounts of the Respondent/Complainant,  the Appellant/O.P. only blocked the credit card on receipt of information of the same being stolen and in apprehension as well that the card may be misused by any third party.  Referring to running page No. 46, being the statement of the billing amount issued by the I.C.I.C.I. Bank, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Respondent/Complainant made payment of an amount of Rs.28,069/- lastly on 28.09.2007.   Referring further to the running page No. 72, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Respondent/Complainant even received an amount of loan to the tune of Rs.22,000/- from the Appellant/O.P. Bank.

          The Ld. Advocate continued that the Salary Savings accounts of the Respondent/Complainant was blocked by the Bank only when the repeated efforts for realizing from the Respondent/Complainant the outstanding dues failed and such blocking of the account was done by the Appellant/O.P. in terms of the Agreement.

          With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for allowing the Appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record. 

          We made an attempt to go through the Agreement between the parties governing the credit card facilities.  Unfortunately, the copy of the Agreement available with the record is hardly legible to be gone through.  The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. also admitted that the Agreement was illegible and cannot be read out.  Therefore, we are not in a position to ascertain as to whether there was at all any condition of blocking the Salary Savings Account in case of non-payment of due amount in the said Agreement, as claimed.

          We, therefore, are of considered view that it would be expedient to send the case on remand to the Ld. District Forum to hear the case afresh considering the said Agreement on receipt of a legible copy of the same and pass a reasoned order after being confirmed as to the existence of any clause of such blocking of the Salary Savings Account.

          The Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order stands set aside.  The case, therefore, is sent on remand to the Ld. District Forum.    Both sides are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 29.09.2016.